tv Capital News Today CSPAN October 20, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
general accepted financing principles that will tell the state and business leaders that we will play it straight on the budget. we will be transparent. they will know how deep the hole is. they will know that we will have a plan to get out of and over, this tough economic times that we are in. we have not grown jobs and yet we're hurting right now, because we had of the nurse that took their eyes off the ball. we were paying 76% more than the national average and our governor did not speak up. right now we're paying 70% more than any other state in new england. it is one of the reason that we've lost more manufacturing jobs than any other state in new england. we're going to change electric
rates and lower those rates. people will have confidence in our ability to do that as well. we're going to get off the backs of small businesses. we charge all businesses the exact same amount as big businesses. we need a different system. those businesses that are most likely to grow over the next few years, we need them to understand they have a partner in the governor's office. we're going to reorganize government. we have three separate agencies that work on economic development. the we could not do any worse. under of malloy administration with the unified approach to job creation. policiesbeen pursuing for 25 years and connecticut that made connecticut almost toxic. we need to change directions. we are considered one of the most unfriendly business states
and the nation. we have a legislature. mandates on businesses. we have an unresponsive state government. i can change that. they will have the confidence and know that we will have a governor who is listening to what their needs are. we'll have a long-term policy to support job growth and job creation. we need to solve our looming budget deficit. no one in connecticut is going to invest. until we get our economic house in order. they want to see government spending reduced. they do not want to see taxes increased. i am committed to reducing our deficit by producing spending. that will provide relief to the business community. we need to make our government more responsive. i am travelling around
connecticut and i hear about employers trying to expand their businesses. they need a permit from the department of environmental protection. those permits can take up to two years. one person was trying to expand his plant and needed a permit. it was going to create 115 jobs. it took 19 months to get the approval. that is unacceptable. if i am governor, i'll make the route -- the bureaucracy more responsive to our employers and our citizens. we have strong special interests up in hartford. the union has had too much influence over policy, and if i am governor, i will change that. i will get the policy right. >> mr. malloy, you have 30 seconds. >> we of had employers supported by my and rigid opponent who
have got us nowhere. some of the highest electric rates in the nation. no benchmarking of those taxes and regulation. isn't it time we go in a different direction? that we concentrate on our competitive that manages? that is what i propose to do. >> the legislature passes volos and these mandates and policies -- the loss and these mandates and policies that killed jobs. it is not true that the governor has done that. i think that it is likely to happen, the way that we're expecting on november 2. democracy will be in crude in -- improved. >> mr. foley, according to the numbers from the state department social services,
three managed-care companies have $20 million. 72% of their methods -- of their revenue was spent on medical care. what would you do to ensure that they comply with federal law? >> we have a new federal health care law which is a change. for anyone who is head and health care issue in the last two years, you know our health- care system is not responding to the needs of the people being served by it. the new federal health care plan will put tremendous burdens on states, including connecticut, and constitutes a lot of change. in connecticut we actually cover far more people than had been covered in many states. the additional coverage from the health care plan in connecticut is less than many other states.
in my health care plan for connecticut, i propose a way of sustaining even further health care coverage to people who are currently not covered in connecticut. one of the opportunities to not only improve healthcare services but take on the challenge of our health care -- our budget deficit is to lower overall health care costs in connecticut. we have one of the highest health care costs in the country. it is $7 billion, 33% of our budget. if we can bring down the cost of delivering health care, we can save a significant and amount of money in our state budget. as for private insurers, a lot have premiums going up. one reason is because of the uncertainty in the federal health-care plan and the cost shifting. there are those in the medicaid system -- it throws the cost of
the private insurers and they have to drive up their rates. that is not good for connecticut. it would kill jobs here in connecticut. >> my opponent ignores the fact that insurance rates for health insurance have gone up routinely each and every year for the last quarter years. they went up over 20% last year. that is why we need to change directions. with respect to the question, i did not -- -- renegotiate contracts and a limited amount the -- the amount of money. it is designed to protect children and make sure that they have access to health care. as i was walking in today, a journal manhandled me a note. i hope it does not mind. he said, mr. mayor, soon to be the next governor, i thought you should know that i have health
insurance once again. i lost it because premiums were too costly, $4,883. i have just learned -- and that only covered hospitalization. now will have pulled coverage because of health care reform. i will not give you his name but this is the big difference between my opponent and myself. i did not believe that you make health care more accessible by cutting health care. i think you root out costs and limit the costs that people make when they are providing the service. i think you need electronic record-keeping and embrace change in new systems. my opponent -- he has proposed to allow your employer to issue a new health policy that would not cover anything. if you have a mastectomy, you would not be guaranteed 48 hours in the hospital, or a mammogram
for that time. if you have a child with a hearing impairment, he would not get a hearing aid. the jump and was told you might have prostate cancer, you would not get a screen. that would make health care cheap. but it does not make a better. >> i have not proposed anything remotely -- you need to stick to the truth. we can reduce health-care costs in connecticut. we spent more than any other state and we can improve the services that are provided and lower the cost to the benefit of everyone. those savings will enable us to provide coverage that i provided for people who do not currently have coverage. it is the goal that i aspire to. >> you may have forgotten your health care plan but i have not. to allow small companies to not previously provided health insurance and any company whose
helping current -- health insurance costs exceed payroll can take a plan set by the commissioner focused on basic care needs and is exempt -- let me say it again -- and is exempt from mandates. >> mr. malloy, the next question is for you. you support changes to the system of binding arbitration for the invisible workers? >> no, i did not. i do not want to be governor of a state where a policeman and firemen and teachers and nurses go out on strike because they are unable to reach a reasonable settlement with their employer. binding arbitration was meant to avoid that. there were 55 strikes before that, a teacher strikes, kids out of schools. many teachers were put in jail because they remained on strike. we have gotten policeman doing
their jobs, firemen doing their jobs, teachers doing their jobs, and nurses doing their job. that is the kind of system might actually support. i don't support allowing people to go out on strike. it tears the fabric of the community apart. this sometimes become a hot- button issue for people who do not understand the system fully. it is designed to bring about settlements. if you examine settlements reached under binding arbitration, they come and better than those who have not done the binding arbitration. if you look at most of the decisions by finding arbiters of the past 18 months, many of them have come in. the teachers' contract came in with 00. we want a system that reflects our values of keeping people safe and in school, reflects
fairness, and also reflects a spirit of cooperation. those contracts are actually settled at the negotiating table, not in arbitration. those they go to arbitration, the settlements can be made. >> dan is starting to sound like a union representative. [applause] we have our state mandating to suffer their cause. our state also requires that they only seek their revenues from the property tax. that is an unfair tax on people. seniors know about this. binding arbitration to avoid a strike is certainly a good thing. but for the state to be telling cities and towns that they must enter binding arbitration is overreaching. it is good for a city or town,
they should enter binding arbitration willingly. as for whether not it is serving the purpose is intended to serve, i have not met a union leader on the campaign trail who want the mandatory binding arbitration as it stands today to change. i've not met one who does not want it changed. that tells me it is not level playing field. binding arbitration should provide a level playing field. i have proposal that the proposals should be members of the american association of our voters. -- arbiters. that would take away some of the local conflicts that they may have. i think it would make it more fair. i think the people who are suffering from binding arbitration are citizens of
connecticut. it drives up the costs of the budget in your cities and towns. i as governor will be working to try to bring down their costs to not only have a serious budget challenge all over connecticut. >> tom does not like mandates to health care or mandates to make sure people did not go on strike. i have to tell you something. as a guy, i am certification glad that local communities are mandated on the preparation of food. i am certainly happy that there is a mandate that the people serving the meat have the certain rigid the proper licenses. i am glad that there is a mandate did you have to have a degree to practice. >> in the last question that i said i was one to take a mandated health care from some people, i have completed the past about bands truthfulness.
if i could prove to you that you have said something that was untruthful, on television or in one of these debates, would you apologize to the people of connecticut for your untruthfulness? >> it's an interesting question you asked at a time when i just read to you language that actually you discounting today. in your own medical plan, you in fact said that people should be allowed to issue policies free of mandates. >> is a simple question. >> i am answering it. >> will you apologize? >> whether you apologize and not. >> we're going to ask the next question. we will begin with mr. foley. [applause] >> connecticut has had special disasters. we're talking about the clean energy plant explosion, a tornado, and a mass murder. as governor, how you prepared
for this? >> a lot of the disaster relief is provided by federal. as result of hurricane to train it, it is not good coordination between the state government and local governments and the federal parliament. i think the federal government has done a lot as a result of the treated to make sure that the coordination is better. -- of katrina to make sure that the coronation is better. -- coordination is better. when we meet the fiscal challenges and make sure we do not pull back on the absolutely critical need to provide public safety and disaster relief when they occur. we need to make sure that those agencies are staffed with true professionals, people who know what they're doing and have the right experience and they can provide the kind of leadership that is needed at that time.
the governor is the one who provides the leadership from the top during emergencies. as my experience in the business world and in leading large organizations, i know what that means. it means the governor needs to be present and take charge and needs to be a governor who knows how to make executive decisions and get the organization under them to respond appropriately and quickly. i have made a commitment to make sure that we follow a good government model when i am the governor. >> you have two minutes. >> points out another difference between my opponent my son. the federal government is not the major respond to emergencies and hurricanes and floods. local officials are. local firemen, local policeman, a local hospitals, the vast majority of services provided in
any instance are provided by people who live in your community. if you're lucky enough to have a police officer living down the street, he responds, or a fireman, foreigners. i have done that for 14 years as mayor. i responded to a fire at a nursing home. i responded to flooding conditions. i've responded to drought conditions. i responded to a hurricane-like wind in the summer. it actually knocked out power to a portion of our community for over seven days. i also met with homeowners and business owners when their power was out for five days. there is a difference between what tom thinks about the federal government and what i think about local government. that is what i will do as governor. the local government would be my partner. i need to work with them and change the direction that the state has gone down for so, so long.
and that is to ignore what the local police chief, the not reach out to hospitals to make sure that they have the resources necessary to respond, and what we need is a governor that actually understands who their partners are. and i do. >> mr. foley, you have 30 seconds. >> large disasters is what you're talking about. they are not handled by a single community. some of those activities need to be coordinated. our federal government under the month -- fema has primary and is very important that the governor cornet with the federal government and be prepared to respond in an appropriate way when true natural disasters and other actions happen which beyond the capability of any single community to respond. you let me be very clear. he has led us down nationally and in our own state.
this last summer when winds ripped the roofs off of trees in bridgeport, in my own community we experienced major flooding and we were denied famous coverage. -- fema covers. we need someone who will not make excuses. >> the city of chicago has parking meters with a billion dollars. you think the privatization of some state services can work here in connecticut? what could we privatize on a large scale? >> with respect to privatization, i am not a fan of privatization. i also reached out to privatize the management of those overseeing our schools facilities. and we had certain requirements of our nursing homes, to
privatize just that service. but our communities are hurting. they need to raise revenue. you're talking about the leasing of assets for the purpose of raising money. under certain controlled circumstances, that makes sense to get you over the hump. but in connecticut, what we have done for far too long as to tell the truth about our budget. that is why we will except general accounting -- generally accepted accounting principles. we will build a system that allows us to dig our way out of the hole by creating a efficiency and purchasing products differently, by going after loopholes that exist for rich individuals and large corporations. the $3 billion of loopholes, if we eliminated 25%, that would recover $750 million that we're giving away and not testing it is the goal that we have for,
creating jobs. we of lost jobs for 28 years in a row. it is time that we actually test ourselves and benchmark what we charge businesses against our competition, our regional competition. and understand what we're doing with our own financing by not growing jobs? we're one to change directions. >> it would be a significant opportunity to close our significant budget problems. i'll represent taxpayers and voters to make sure you were doing the best deal for your money. it does not make sense to use our state work force if it can be done less expensively with the same level of quality and accountability by private contractors. let me give you an example. riverview hospital is serving about 80 young people with serious mental health
challenges. it cost the state $922,000 a year for each one of those patients. outside contractors said the at the equivalent and sometimes better services for less than half of that amount, and we can save $25 million. that is a lot of money. why should the citizens of connecticut, if we're going to pave the road, pay more to have it paid by one person than another? we need to ensure the protection for taxpayers and are voters that we get the best deal for the state. why should we also required that if the state is providing services, they have to provided at the same cost or less than a private contractor? i will make sure that in hartford the taxpayers are well represented and they're getting the best deal we can for our money.
their places all over this government or the opportunity exists to use private contractors as an important part of house of lords is government spending. dan has no significant proposals for reducing spending. he is going to raise your taxes. that is going to be a lot of new taxes on connecticut families. it will hurt our economy and it will kill further jobs. >> but as be very clear. many services in the state in construction are in fact performed by private contractors. tom keep saying i'm going to raise taxes. that there'se is a $3.5 billion deficit and then he will cut the deficit by eliminating $2 billion in expenses. tom's plan is to raise your property tax. the most regressive tax that the state has. it is the only way to pull this
off. >> if not heard dan talk about how he is going to reduce government spending. if you record the solve the budget deficit by raising taxes, they will go a lot. he will take the marginal income tax rate above 9% or doubling the sales tax, the only significant sources of revenue that could solve the budget. you owe it to the listeners tonight to tell them which taxer you going to raise and by how much. >> a panel of business leaders selected by gov. jodi rell proposed a gap. excellence in teaching is the most important thing to close in the achievement gap. what would you to major connecticut has the best teachers possible? >> i am well aware of the
commission report. i have a plan that are released about six weeks ago. the recommendation to this commission and my plan are virtually the same. we support choice, they support assessments of teachers and principals and schools to make sure that they are good. and i agree completely with the findings of this commission. excellent schools and doing the right thing for the young children here in connecticut depends on having excellent teachers. thankfully we have mostly excellent teachers here. we need to make sure that teachers who are not meeting minimal levels are provided opportunities for professional development. if they cannot get up to the standard that we need for classrooms to ensure the people in our failing schools and our inner cities that they are meeting the cesspools standards, we need to find a way to remove them from the system. i agree entirely with the
commission. they also agreed that we need to parade our schools statewide k-f -- k-12. and then come in and fix them. we need to set goals. we do not have a final exam that grade school students have to pass before they graduate grade school. while we have gone from fifth to aid, another state has implemented many of these recommendations including assessments for teachers and a performance space, and a final exam for people who graduate from high school to ensure that they have skills that they need to enter the workforce to earn a living and provide for themselves. i will support this commission's findings which were similar to what i have in my plan for connecticut. >> i want to thank the commission for their work.
i want to thank them for allowing me to testify and to bring to them many of the recommendations. it should have taken place eight years ago. one of the first commission's in the entire state. i look at the recommendations and many of these are important changes. universal free care, we did it in stanford 11 years ago. and the plan to migrate running mate and i put out in june on how to change education in connecticut. it is not a-12, it is pre-k through college. we need a system where no child is denied early lennon -- learning because of their parents circumstances. and the school they should be lengthened and be individualized curriculum should be designed for children
if they fall behind. let's be very clear. if i become governor, one of the things i want to see is more time spent in the classroom on early reading skills and early math skills. we should design a program where no child leaves third grade one or two years already behind in math or reading skills. we can do it. we know what works. we've had charter schools in the state. i sponsored two of them as the mayor of this city of stanford. we need to take the lessons we have learned in those schools and apply them to the 90% of the public schools that are not charter schools. we need a governor who is going to do this. education reformation only works in a state with the governor working. that's why i'm asking you for your support. that is why i stand with teachers and with parents and with principles. let's not pit the interests of one group against another. let stand in connecticut for a
children. >> stanford has the largest achievement gap of any city in the state. dan, despite having testified at the commission, it did not testify on supporting the recommendations. money following the child, and the best performing teachers being the ones that get promoted and of the former space. for dan to say did he suggest in most of the things is commission recommended is not true. >> tom made more mistakes about my record. i want to be very clear. we begin the process of changing education in stanford many years ago. as governor, i can bring those changes to the rest of the state. some of our urban areas are failing 40% of the students.
we need to make real changes and i am prepared to do it. >> the next question goes to you. much has been made about the expenses and high salaries in the university system. as governor, what would you do to change the system to make it more efficient? to the i think leadership begins with the governor's office. as i have read the stories of the summer about paying to presidents of it can said -- two presidents of the campus, they make absolutely no sense. if they are tone deaf and do not understand how hard are working class and individuals are working just to keep their neck above water. what we needed education is people who have practical sense and understand when it is time to make additional investments or when it is time to cut back a little bit to save money, to
reduce administrative staff. and the idea that we would pay two presidents at the same time at the same university makes absolutely no sense. this is my promise. i will play a role in selecting new trusty's for each and we will make sure that people have connecticut common sense. that they know when to move forward and no one to stand still, they know when did make new investments and they know when people are hurting. i support yukon and the other universities. we need to keep them all open and strong and direct more money into teaching and to making sure they are middle- class and working-class students receive the education is that -- at those institutions. and community colleges are ignored. we need to understand that a significant portion of our population is going to receive a
portion if not all of their college educations in those community colleges. i recently met with a number presidents of those colleges and i stand with them to make sure that they improperly prepared a well educated, well trained, and ready work force. >> this problem is not just that you can. we need to change the way the retirement benefits are calculated in connecticut. in stanford, when dan was mayor, their own fire chief retired last year with a $250,000 a year pension after running up $4,000 of work. this happened during dance administration. -- dan's administration. the retirement benefits are too large. it is great for them and their families but we cannot afford it. let me tell you why it has a
negative impact. we have a to provide a good education and we need to be able to train and provide the skills and experience of the people need all through our educational systems. they have to enter the work force and be prepared to fulfill the jobs of the employers that i hope to attract here as governor. the cost of an education in connecticut is very high. last year for the first time, the amount of tuition at yukon when over 50% of the cost of educating each student there. we need to control very carefully the cost of all our higher education institutions of that we can keep tuition low, not too high for people to be able to pursue a college education that they want to, and to make sure that we provide a quality education in the classroom. one of the problems we had at you can is the control of the
budget is not under any single person or entity. we need to restructure the way is organized the may surge you can avoid uses such as we heard about in the last year. >> i am dumbfounded. i don't know what fire chief my opponent is speaking about. we fully funded our pensions. and when they fall below we step up. for much of the time that i was mayor, many of our pensions were funded at 125% of obligation. people that this gentleman supported in the state of connecticut, what we need is fiscal control and i'm about to bring a. >> we will definitely need to have a new governor look at the
whole university system and how we aren't spurring costs there. the next governor needs to make sure that we are able to provide quality education in our higher education for the residents of connecticut and those who choose to come here from out of state. as governor, i will make sure that that is first with an education and reduce expenses and making sure it is sufficient. >> mr. foley. they're still county is one of the most congested areas in the nation -- fairfield county is one of the most congested areas in the nation. what is your plan? >> i have talked about the disadvantaged with connecticut not having a comprehensive transportation strategy. i'm told that the transportation strategy board has, of the plan, but i understand it is over 200 pages long. that is not planned.
one of the problems we have had in connecticut is being able to balance the priorities both of funding and which projects to pursue before others. the congestion is certainly one in fairfield county. it costs commuters time but most importantly, it costs us jobs. many employers complain that their employees and their trucks providing goods and other transportation providing services, this adds to their costs. it makes connecticut less attractive place to employ people. we need to address this issue and other transportation issues across the state. we need higher rail access to hartford and to new london. if in -- if the train service was more regular and could get people into new york more quickly, it would provide all
the community of benefit and a more attractive place for people to locate companies. in fairfield county, there have been many proposals, trying to discourage local traffic from jumping on, which contributes to the traffic. maybe there is a way to divert some of the truck through track and have them take other routes to their final destination where they do not require route 95 in order to get there. but we need an overall strategy and surly congestion in fairfield county is important. >> what we need to to is to solve this problem. we have been kicking around for years. we do not invest a lot of our own money in transportation. we rank 50th at 50 states for our own contribution to
transportation projects. we of also failed miserably in bringing federal dollars back to the state. we rented the bottom for getting competitive grants. -- we blank at the bottom for getting competitive great spirit -- rank at the bottom for getting competitive grants. traffic no longer has to go through the downtown of stanford. this what we can do on a statewide basis. they were not able to maneuver as is that were designed 70 years ago. we need to invest in real. when did they produce system half not as the way it was years
ago, but rather as a subway system. when it a transportation system that delivers people to their jobs. i would encourage private providers to have that service. some 27 are doing that in the city of stanford at the stanford train station. we need to invest and have more trains going into new london. just one or two in the morning or afternoon does not make sense. we need to hear the people of connecticut who desire to use the system and we absolutely need for parking spaces for people off of 95. >> that is not our only chance. we do not have the right amount funded for transportation projects. hard general assembly has diverted funds that were meant
to be going to transportation into the general fund to continue their spending spree. as governor of will reestablish the integrity of the gross receipts tax and several other expenses that were meant to cover transportation so that we can find things like this. >> every one of those reductions was allowed by republican governor and my opponent is republican. i have a policy. we want to invest in bridgeport and new haven and new london. a lot of freight is delivered to those ports. if we just made some investment, that is another million trucks coming off of 95. that will change. >> we started by asking about the first 100 days. mr. malloy, given three very specific cuts you would make to save the budget. >> i think we need to look at
our medicaid system and go to generic drugs to save $21 million. i think we need to change how we purchase electricity. we're overpaying for electricity. the system i would doubt would save $60 million of the last summer. we need to look at how we improve building projects in this state and streamline that and make sure that they are built in a cost-effective way. that would save hundreds of millions of dollars when you compare the cost of a school in connecticut to a school in another state. i know that those are just a few. we have 75 pages of policies and our web site and there are so many of the things. i want to combine state
department and agencies by 33%. we will reduce the right off the bat at a minimum of 15% and maybe more. we need to look at how we procure services from outside agencies. when we had the last big privatization push by republican governors, they pushed inspection services out to private people. now we're paying more than we ever and paid for inspection service and we're living through the nightmare on i-84. we're going to change how we procure services. here's another idea that i put forward. right now we have something in america called ebay. you purchase a commodity, i want a system that compares prices every day and brings about millions and millions of dollars for savings. >> mr. foley, 03.
>> i think what you're talking about is what a governor would do to reduce spending in a fiscal 2012 year that starts july 1. there is an anticipated $600 million of new spending. the first thing i would do as governor is say we're going to keep spending at the level of last year, the current year, and now will save $600 million. i would put on a hiring freeze and maybe $100 million of savings. we need to reduce the size of the state work force and do it through attrition. if we do a hiring freeze and people as they retire or move, we are downsizing and that will save money. we will eliminate waste and duplication. there are two commissions and the 1990's that had a long list of recommendations for our state government could be streamlined
and eliminate waste and duplication. very few of those were never implemented. i will pull that off the shelf and implement them. will we use all outside contractors where we can assure the same level of quality and service is maintained. at riverview hospital, by moving to private contractors, it could save as much as $25 million a year. there are many more opportunities like that. i would begin moving more elderly medicaid patients from nursing home care to community- based care. there's up to $600 million to be saved if we can transition not only medicaid patients to community care. and it is more humane. the patients prefer it. in some cases, they can stay in their home. all of lower the cost of health care. it is $7 billion of our budget. if we can lower it by 10%, it will save $700 million.
>> 30 seconds. >> yet you're going to cut medicaid out, put people in mental treatment facilities to would be living on the streets. people try to access clinics would be denied that coverage. the safety net is going to be preserved under my administration, because over the last two years the safety net has been under attack. we have to change the balance. >> back to said they would keep all level of spending at the same level. if medicaid expenses are going up and they cannot be brought down, we will remove expense some morals. i said that we will solve the budget deficit we have here in connecticut, and we will do it without hurting our needy
citizens including the medicaid population. >> one final question for you. you have two minutes each but no rabaul. when the university of notre dame took on yukon as a opponent, they insisted they did not be played in the state. you agree with that decision? >> is that remain? i actually was not familiar with that decision. i assume it was done for reason of the size of the audience to be handled at that field. judith it was told that they wanted to be in a different market. >> listen, i think connecticut is a great state and we have a lot offer. i do not know it would rather be in new jersey than in connecticut.
[laughter] i just had chris christie appear supporting my campaign and he talked about what he has done for new jersey. new jersey is a great state. i am here in connecticut for reason. it talked in the past about providing stadium to bring a professional sports team here to connecticut. that may be an opportunity to create jobs and stimulate our economy in certain parts of our state. but i am well aware that the support of professional sports team, you need a certain size market. it is not clear that we have that in connecticut. i do not agree that professional sports team ought to be brought to connecticut and subsidized by our state government or any municipal government. unless it is self supporting eventually. if we do not have the market,
and maybe the issue with no dame -- notre dame is an indication, i don't think we should be providing the incentives. >> i love yukon football, and have -- and we have one of the best coaches in the country. when it came to reaching the agreement to play those games out of state, i rejected it. if i had been governor the time, i would pull the folks at yukon aside and said find someone else to play. we diminish herself when we agree to play a team not our home team. we diminish herself as a state when we take all that money that would be spent in and around hartford on that game, and we put it into new jersey. we diminish ourselves because
we haven't governor who put forward a budget for tourism of $1. we do not coordinate the activity of sports agencies in this country. it is a multibillion-dollar business and get we are not actively going after ncaa quarterfinals or women's basketball or hockey or other. we've let other people take those opportunities away from us. that is why my great running mate in i have put forward a proposal with respect to what to do to make connecticut a more attractive venue for sports events and competitions. it is money in the bank. and if you do not understand that, then you're going to make bad decisions like having a $1 tourism budget. that makes no sense at all. if we spend more money promoting and the convention facilities in hartford and the other great things in our state,
we would get a return on our investment. >> it is time for the closing statements. mr. foley, you get to go first. >> connecticut's future is at stake in the upcoming election. connecticut should be doing well but we are not. across the country people have lost confidence in the politics and the politicians they have gotten us where we are. they're looking for outsiders and strong new leaders to take this in a different direction. on election you will have a clear choice between me and my opponent. i am an outsider. i'm a problem solver. if had 16 businesses and turn around large organizations for over 25 years. these are skills that connecticut needs now. i am also a business person and i have a plan for restoring jobs in connecticut. i believe i can get employers to start hiring again. we have a serious spending problem here in connecticut.
i have a plan for cutting back the size of state government and closing our budget deficit by reducing spending. i will not raise your taxes. my opponent has no plan to reduce spending and he says he will raise your taxes. closing the budget deficit by raising taxes will mean the average household in connecticut lost tax bill will go up by over $2,000. it will further killed jobs. i will come to hartford with no commitment to anybody other than you the voters. my opponent has made commitments to unions who are very powerful in hartford. it will be very difficult for him to negotiate long-term for our state. i have a plan to fix our failing schools. i want to be known as the jobs
and education as governor. i am someone you can trust. i am not a career politician who will say anything to get elected. i believe i can provide the leadership that is needed for connecticut in the future. i hope you will let me your next governor. >> i am not going to go over all the things that tom said that was wrong about me. but taxes, i fear that tom was to raise property taxes. in hartford, that might mean more than $2,000 in property taxes for you. but let me talk about something else. i went to college in 1973 at just what a university. it took me years to do that. in the fall of 1973, alice using books for the blind
because by scull said had not caught up. -- because my skill set had not caught up. i stayed there and i graduated magna cum laude. on the completion of law school, i took the bar exam and was the first person to be allowed to take it or early. i have overcome obstacles in my life. is one of the reasons -- my mom was a nurse and my dad sold insurance. my mother used to say to me almost every day that we shared this earth and she's been called for 26 years, you have an obligation to leave this world a better place. throughout my life, i kept that in mind. as a volunteer on the board of education, i kept those words in my mind. for 14 years as the mayor wrote stanford, lowering crime,
education, maintaining the aaa bond rating, i kept my mother's words in my mind. i am asking for your vote. i am asking for your confidence. i believe that together we will create a better connecticut. >> gentleman, thank you very much. [applause] our time is completed. thank you very much to our crowd and we think our candidates once again. the republican dan malloy and the democrat. they have been waiting to cap -- clap and applaud all day long. it is great to see you again. do not forget to vote on november 2. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> voters go to the polls in two weeks. follow us every night up to
election day. archive debates are on line at the c-span video library. we have up came in campaign events. policy's been possible election coverage right through election tuesday. and our live debate coverage continues tomorrow night with the governor's race in massachusetts. the ball patrick will debate his opponents. that is live at 8:00 eastern. that is followed by the new mexico governor's debate. and live from albuquerque. you can watch those debates live on c-span and c-span.org. up next on c-span, hard campaign 2010 coverage continues with an election preview from "politico."
that is followed by the debates for illinois and florida governor. >> every morning is "washington journal," connecting it with journalists, the elected leaders, and policy makers. watch coverage of the house of representatives and policy forums. every weekend, look for signature energy programs. "the communicators" and q&a. through november, c coverage of campaign 2010 as the political partisan battle for control of congress. our programming is available any time at c-span.org and searchable at the c-span video library. c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> now analysis of this year's election from newspaper and website political.
reporters discuss key congressional races at the newseum in washington. this is an hour. [applause] >> good morning and welcome. i and the editor in chief of "politico." thank you for joining us here today. we are 32 days away from what we recognize will be one of the most consequential midterm elections in many years. the campaign trail in recent days has revealed a nation that is more polarized than ever. we've seen candidates of both parties taking out the extreme positions, tearing down their opponents in the most brutal and personal way, in many case of shredding their own reputation and making fools of themselves.
for students and government and of washington, this raises a profound question -- is this nation going to become even more ungovernable after the midterm elections for people? it raises a different question -- how lucky can we get? we are all here political junkies. we look like this stuff. we assume that you are political junkies. or you would not be here. i suspect many people joining us on our c-span audience also are political junkies and welcome to you all. this is a great moment. we are having a blast and tons to talk about today. i want to introduce my political colleagues who are going to be joining us. they will give their insights. all the way down at the end is a name and face familiar to many
people, are cheap political columnist. we have karen who covers politics and policy on capitol hill. our chief white house correspondent. jonathan >> another senior political reporter that just joined politico this year. an outside the beltway perspective. maggie lives in new york city. [laughter] i want to thank our sponsor for today's event -- a national cable and television association. i do not believe that any organization is doing more than politico to help cable television. mike.ulatrly, roger and
thank you very much. we are glad that you could help us sponsor of this event and be here today. let's start out. we got news today in the form of an nbc news/"the wall street journal" poll that shows there continues to be a seven point margin between engineer question -- whether people or for a democrat -- prefer a democrat or a republican. that is the basic trajectory, favoring the republicans. it is in staying stable. in recent days, we heard proclamations from the white house that the race is tightening. that things are unpredictable. what is your sense? is this race a fundamentally stable or a very fluid? >> somewhere in between. what is a striking about that poll is that, yes, there was a
seven point advantage for the gop, but among registered voters, democrats had a two point advantage. that underscores the central theme of the cycle and that is that republicans have not fixed all of their problems, but there is -- they are a lot more enthusiastic about voting. that is why you see president obama and the democrats doing everything they can to rally their own base. surge voters. african-americans, hispanics, college kids that did not an active that came out to vote for president in 2008. if those folks did not show up, it will be a bad night for democrats. you had a president in places like madison, wisconsin, at two big college towns with important senate races. the president was in philadelphia, working on african
americans, going to las vegas this week, focusing on hispanic voters. but it's still an open question, if those folks come out. as folks in the audience know, it is difficult to get presidential year voters out for midterms. the coverage is different. that is the challenge they have. talking to the president's top aides in the white house, they are making the case that yes, there are signs that the races are tightening, that democrats are coming home. for every poll that comes out that shares a democrat starting to make the race more competitive, a sestak in pennsylvania for example, you have more data that shows a gop candidates in the house of broadening the playing field. for every good news democrats have, there is better news for the gop. >> a couple of quick points. i will be pepering out --
peppering our panelists with questions. we have a limited amount of time. we will save lots of time for questions from you guys. to my panelists, i say, let's keep things tight. in the of keeping things tight i in t hhe spirit of that, will ask you about this morning's playbook. he gives a daily forecast of the trajectory of the house. i do not want to get to the idea that mike is just appalling mess out of thin air and coming up with the numbers. -- is just coming up with this out of thin air. scientificot mor more prediction than the one mike offers. on the current should a tree, if the election were held right
now, democrats would lose the house. republicans would win with 47 seats. i will go down the panel and ask everybody. model --mputer-tested do you think the result will be higher, more than 47, lower, or dead on? >> slightly lower. >> in the house? higher. >> mike? myself.go negative on [inaudible] 47 if it were held today. all the signs are that number will get bigger. if you get to the 45, you'll probably get to 49. if you get to 49, you'll probably get to 53. if you did to 53, you'll probably get to 57. >> i think mike's spot on.
but i also think that these races are in flux. whoever does the least stupid thing. >> roger? >> i am not pulling this out of a computer projection, but out of my head. mike's low. i think it's 50 today. that's a floor, not a ceiling. it will get worse. it will be a bloodbath election. i don't say that with joy. yes, president obama is going out addressing his days very strongly in these last few weeks, but you could say it is a sign of weakness, that you have
to address your base in the last few weeks and not the per se wadable-- pursuadable outside your base. he is nailing down african americans, college kids -- it is a sign perhaps that those people are not nailed down debt and that is not a good sign. >> do you see a republican senate? >> i have the republicans today seats. up eight >> if i heard everybody correctly, we have four people saying that republicans take the house. you say it is slightly lower than 47. do you think there is a possibility that republicans would fall short, a little bit short of the end zone and not take control of the house? >> very unlikely. you do have all the energy on
the republican side. i agree with roger. obama has come under criticism for not doing this earlier, more aggressively, being more involved. this will be one of the questions people ask after appea. some of the races, like the expanded met in new york, these are not all equal. ny4, caroline is not in that much trouble. she is facing an opponent with a $25,000. there is not a lot of outside money coming in. things are very specific to low -- the ny gop being in disarray. i will head a bit and think it will be a little bit closer than people think. >> roger, i am interested in your historical perspective. does this year, what you see or feel, scene is similar to you from other big turnover years
-- 1980, 1994 -- or are the circumstances we have this year do need? >> i looked at both years. 1980 is hard to compare because it was a presidential election year. it was a huge win for ronald reagan, 10% of the vote. republicans picked up 12 seats in the senate, the largest swing since 1958. it marked the first time since 1954 that republicans controlled one of the houses of congress. the republicans gained 35 seats in the house, but the democrats held on to control. but because of the southern conservatives among the democrats, ronald reagan had a working majority in the house of representatives, even though he did not control it. but this was a reagan's year.
it was my first campaign, so i was the partying at the century plaza in los angeles. i was not worried about the house or the senate. but the turnout is higher in presidential election years. the turnout in midterms is 40%. ronald reagan brought out not only people enthusiastic for him a but what became known as the reagan democrats. so it threw things off. 1994 is a better example. this was the so-called republican revolution. the republicans had to rally around but in new gingrich. they have their contract with america. approval rating was 44%, heading into election day. gallup pointed out that
every president in the history of polling that has gone into an election in the midterms under 50% in their approval rating has suffered a serious loss in congress. two other things. three pillars of the democratic party -- lower income voters, young voters and african american voters did not come out in the numbers they usually do in 1994. and also, as the committee for the study of the american electorate concluded, this is a bipartisan group, they noticed "the democrats did poorly in part because the failure to offer any seymour message all round which voters could rally -- any theme or message around which voters could rally."
>> interesting. mike, the people in the white house that you talked to, in private moments, what would they say about the analysis? do they think there is anything they can do to change the trajectory? what's the mood? >> you are seeing -- [inaudible] officials out there. this is different. we are not getting a lot of the obama voters. it puts more onus on republicans to be responsible and to work with us. they don't things are going to get a lot better. they are not moping around. if you think about obama, he's set up pretty well.
he will have a lot of colorful -- [laughter] to deal with. he will be able to point to house republicans. it frees him of the burden of being responsible for what is going on or not going on in washington. he will not be able to run as change. >> that took up two questions. first off, maggie, colorful is sometimes a euphemism for nutty. we have seen a lot of strange things happening on the campaign trail this year. give me your sense of some of the highlights and tell me what is going on. it feels like people have gone off the rails, candidates and voters alike. >> they have spun off the edge
and approaching the press of this for months. palladino being the most eccentric example. a republican running against andrew cuomo who is way be hhind in the polls. you do not ordinarily see a phenomenon like him in new york. you are seeing this elsewhere in the country with tea party candidates. they are not ready for prime time. they are elected by a small group of people. this is hardly a mandate and they are not ready for the big states. palladino in a debate with toinge candidates, when up an -- went upt t to go to the bathroom five minutes before
the end of the debate. >> a reminder: have a pair of depends. >> a few weeks ago, you had been getting into fisticuffs, threatening to take him out. you had a long serving congressmen in upstate new york hotel a reporter to shut up. and when the cameras were off, he laid hands on him. you are seeing wacky things all over the country. part of it is also that there is a climate of the circus, where anything goes. people do not know what voters want. the things that turn off voters are not doing that this year. technology?t the like we had an alaska few nights ago were joe miller had his
private security force, drop zone, handcuff a local reporter and try to do a citizen's arrest, which i have not seen since "dukes of hazard." we may have heard about that, but nowadays we have pictures, video, overnight accounts that the next day we see it. so i think that's been a factor, too. > christine o'donnell is dominating cable news coverage because she is powerful, provocative, and interesting, but she is far behind. there is no prospect that she will win and a state that is one of the smallest in the union. in this environment, this hyper-politicized environment, with so much media covering
politics, she has become one of the major characters and having some influence nationally. usually, a democrat candidates are saying that there are. it is another version of christie and o'donnell. -- christine o'donnell. >> today, anyone who wants you can become a journalist. topolitics, we are close anyone being able to become a candidate. there have always been wackos in american politics, but they used to be in the audience. now they're on stage running for congress and the senate. and that may be a trend in american politics that we will see increasing in the years ahead. >> mike said something provocative, which is, even if republicans take power in the house, and possibly even both
chambers, although that is unlikely, that the obama white house may find an opportunity in that to regain control of the agenda. give us your take on the likely policy agenda that will be confronting washington next year. >> i think that immediately after the election, and you are hearing this already, and i think the white house will enjoy this -- this is it now you have a shared responsibility. republicans will have to share and the responsibility of governing. they will enjoy delivering that message after two years of having no real recourse and getting them to govern with democrats. policy-wise i do not think you see a realistic chance of having a comprehensive immigration reform. >> why? because neither party has an
incentive? >> i think both parties have an incentive, but the expected makeup of any republican senate, even with a minority, the proponents of a comprehensive immigration reform do not have the numbers. we have done studies where they have 30 votes in terms of people that are running, what they are running on, and the makeup of the incumbents coming back. they do not have the numbers to pass a bill that has a legalization component. so i think -- i do not think you will see that. the white house will be in a constant state of defense over health care. i do believe that. the republicans will face a lot of pressure in the house to try their best to do something on repealing health care reform. they will not be successful because they do not have the white house, but that does not mean -- they will face a tremendous pressure from the base and from voters who put members of the congress into
office who ran on this platform, so if they do not push hard, if the republican leadership is not seen as pushing hard, they will face trouble with their base. one thing you cannot predict right now is the effect of the 2012 republican primary on the house. and the leaders. '07, you did not see much of an incentive for democrats to work with george bush, because they were trying to create a contrast with george bush. you will see john boehner face the same pressure from his can of its and who emerges in that republican primary field will overshadow a lot of policy making. i think you'll see the white house have to go back to education. they will have a reauthorization bill. there is some evidence that republicans can work with democrats on this. ou saw today a letter from a republican can invent in oregon
telling the president he will work with him on education reform. we are seeing signs of that. that is a possibility. but in terms of the big items we saw the last two years, nothing. >> "morning score." just so people know. i think we know "playbook." we had a spinoff from that just like "maude" spun off of "all in the family." this is for the true campaign junkies. it comes out every morning at 6:00 by alex burns. "morning score." >> [inaudible]
you can predict that house republicans -- and that is they are very cautious. [inaudible] they can work on retraining. it won't last long, but we can see both sides -- a problem for john boehner -- [inaudible] >> also, we will have bomb throwers in his own caucus. personal-based antipathy toward president obama.
the notion of working with this president will be reviled by some members of the house, but a lot of the folks that a less of a new house -- elected the new house gop. >> right now the tea partiers are mad at democrats. at2012, they will be made the republicans. >> that is not why we may use speaker. >> we have talked about the contrast with 1944. that raises two big one. newt gingrich saw himself as a transformer that figure. john boehner and mitch mcconnell are figures of the existing structure. they are established politicians. they are more conservative than even many republicans and opposed to the obama agenda, but
they are not by nature radical. newt gingrich in 1994 saw himself as radical. another thing, and this is just as a reminder that life is full of surprises and you should remember that when listing to anybody's political analysis, including our own, on election night, 2008, i think we would of said these results show the republican party has a fundamentally reinvent itself. it needs to come up with new ideas, put forth new faces and personalities, finding new voters. it could take a generation to find this new message with the new voters. it turns out that is not true. they stuck with their current group of voters. they did not put forth an expansive new agenda, and they have the same faces that they have had. >> one small thing to keep in mind. we are going to get this year legislators who are going to washington not to
do things but to prevent things from being done. they -- the first group that will be announced is that america is a center-right country, but more importantly, they will talk about the role of government, a smaller government, less intrusive, a government that can not in the minds of some do anything that is not written in the constitution. it will spend a lot of time trying to overturn that legislation, especially the health care package passed by president obama, that has already been done. so we are going to see a different type of mindset on a -- among a significant group of legislators. >> that raises another good point. the consumer guide for political journalists, most of us have an addiction to wanting
to describe elections and the geologic terms.nto a l we keep falling for this. after 2002, now is a center- right country. then after 2006 and 2008, the plates have shifted and it's center-left. maybe that used to be true in a more sedate era of politics. we should not think of politics and elections in the geologic terms. we should think about them and orological terms.te constant change, like the
weather. i want to go to the audience questions. a lot of good ones. let's go race by race. who got caught napping in this wave? what democrats are in trouble that you never thought would be? >> the first one is russ feingold, a three-term senator from wisconsin. all well-known figure in politics for his american brand. i talked to him for a story in august about three members in the class of 1992 are facing tough elections. senator, this will be your toughest race. >> he said, no. 1998 was tougher.
this is not 1998. he saw he may be insulated. he is facing a self-funder with no voting record. there is not a lot of ammunition that he can use against ron johnson. wisconsin is not as democratic as some may think. it is a classic swing state at bush narrowly lost twice. he is someone that did not see the train coming. >> is he the underdog now? >> i think he is. on the house side -- you see house institutions that have lost. it was a jack brooks in 1994. a texas congressman that was their sense fdr and he lost.
it is so slight that they get swept up. 1980, of course, like john colvert, george mcgovern. it will be interesting to see which house institution was caught napping. the one to keep an eye on is jim overstarr who is from minnesota. one of three watergate babies. there is three of them. he is one. in the summer, he said that they did not think they had a raise. he does have erased now. a race now. >> give me an example of candidates to have surprised t you. >> i think surprisingly bad -- lee fischer in ohio. classic swing state.
democrat nominee for the sun appeared a race that was thought to be competitive. everybody had left him for dead. the less financial report he showed very little money on hand. he is somebody that is in no not w not going to pull this off. meg whitman has spent $150 million. she will spend more than that. every public poll has -- winning. >> maggie, an obvious question. this comes from donna ritter.
-- an audience question. is the mama grizzly label a good thing or a liability? an appropriate question for someone who is weeks away from being a mama. >> it has been politically potent and dangersou. ous. christie o'donnell is not exactly going to go down in the annals of great candidates in the general election. in terms of how well this is for sarah palin and the future, there is a huge number of republicans to do not believe she will run. how well this place all for her, i think will have a better sense and a year. the mama grizzly has helped her
stand-up. she is polarizing. she is a unique figure in politics right now. i am not quite sure what it translates to. it is hard to see. with the allen, democratic attack ads and president obama's speeches and the business groups support funding many of the independent as -- r these attacks resonating with voters and a rallying the democratic base? >> it seems to be backfiring. american crossroads. they were worried about whether they would exist after this cycle. now, they are bigger than ever. they are in a pretty good position. i think what the white house was thinking was, yes, this will
rally our base. perhaps this will deter some companies or donors to our think about giving -- they will think twice. also, you consider it is a delegitimizing some republican victories. they will say, look how they won. democrats say this is working with their people, but it is giving them on dewitt -- has given an unbelievable lift to the groups. glenn beck said we have to come to the defense of the chamber of commerce. he put a direct link on this page to give money to them. and they got a great nation. the chamber of commerce, we give it as a big building across from the white house. out in real america, it is the dry cleaner, the person who sponsors your kids little league. >> i agree with mike.
the white house has some evidence that this attack was a weak attack. and to have the president do it was also a sign of weakness because they could not get attention for the otherwise. if you had the government of china and giving the chamber of commerce $100 million and $10 million ending up in some republican's campaign fund in california, that would be a hell of a story. just to say -- this could happen. unless that chamber and other groups show us their books, this is proof that this could be true. it's a weak attack. it did not reflect well on the white house. >> this message is not just about before or after the election. when there are heavy losses,
democrats could point to the avalanche of money that came in and we are drowned because of the secret money that came in. that may be a good message, but money does not always try election results. look at 2006. democrats have less money. jim webber was down, was running against a candidate that was going to run for president, and he wins. money does not always drive these elections. it is usually the message and the environment of that cycle. >> ben smith wrote about that not only has the message backfired, but the democrats have disarmed on this. they are not putting their own money into combat this. >> what role has social media played in helping the
republicans' gathering in "fring e" candidates? >> facebook and twitter? the kids love that. >> i believe we can follow your twitter feed. a realtelated question. we are accustomed in politics to think that the energy of a wing in either party, that the more energy and the more vociferous they are and their views, the more that turns of independents. there is a tension between the enthusiasm of the base and the ability to attract independents. one assertion is that those two are not in tension. the concerns that the independence has of for the deficit is helping the gop
base. how do you rally the base and keep independence and play? >> on fiscal issues, they are in concert. for all of their colorful excess, when it comes to issues like spending, taxes, look at the polling, swing voters are linging up. -- lining up. as to social media, there is no other tired saw than the tip o'neill "all politics is local." you look at a place like alaska or delaware. they are smaller states. a small electorate.
youtube, talk radio, cable tv, twitter and facebook are such that the most engaged voters are not going to the polls and thinking about, will that bridge be fixed? they are thinking of more national issues. will this candidate be right on the obama-care? it is those factors that are animating the conservative voters and the smaller turnout primaries. like mike castle, you could see visibly -- you know me. i've been to your rotary. my goodness, what has happened? the voters going to the polls le nothin thinking
ocally. they are getting their news from national sources. national trends are and play even in the local races. >> and bill clinton in an interview made a point that i heard him make. one of newt gingrich's big innovations is that he showed that midterm elections, which historically had been a collection of local races, could be nationalized and that is the new norm. this is a nationalize the election. certainly, more candidates are trying to counteract that by doing everything they can to localize the election, saying this election is not about barack obama. it is about smith immerses jones in an individual race. but this is an nationalize congressional election in the same way that 2006 was, and 2002
was, and in 1998 and 1994. >> a piece of evidence and that is that you've seen a lot of the year markers go down and the cycle. arlen specter, lisa murkowski. abouteer used to run ads local projects, and that did not work. >> the twitter. >> we are seeing the leading edge in this campaign of how social immediate impact 2012. even though they got a lot of credit for using social media in the obama campaign, most of their money was raised and done with e-mail and text messages. this side of the velocity of change in media is that the obama campaign did not tweet. that was less than two years ago. the profound effect is how
much easier it is for them to talk about -- to talk to their own people. text them, watch the event, click on i t. t. this has been the dream of candidates -- how to keep people engaged? >> it is more barbie were about politics, remembering how fluid things are -- is more a buyer beware, remembering how fluid things are. the 72-hour project. karl rove is building a permit a powerful political machine that will be powerful for generations. we are targeting huge trends. this will be a permanent advantage for the party that masters said. in 2008, the obama of voters --
this will be a long-term structural advantage. republicans will not be able to counter it. all b.s. every new election produces a new innovation in terms of using technology to mobilize voters. the classic permanent task part of politics -- how do mobilized voters each year -- it's a new incarnation. totally discount any analysis that you read after an election that says, this shows how one party now has a lock on technology or our certain demographic for years to come. another policy question. terry -- we resent that youar are seen as the policy person. we are seen as crass. roger mentioned that this could
republicans will come to power motivated by what they are not for, but what they want to stop. if republicans gain control of the house anddivided byor the senate, what would be their first legislative -- gain control of the house and/or senate, will be their first piece of legislation? >> i do think one of their first bills that they will file have to do with health care in some form, going after it. they will make a show of that in the new congress. the question is is just how dedicated and committed the republican leaders will be to follow through and really push it. i mean, they may be able to get something to the house -- not through the senate -- if there is a democratic majority, even if only a slight majority. >> were for democratic
candidates on the campaign trail not bolting from health care but also not defending it. of course, every big legislation needs to be modified. do you think that democrats will draw a line in the sand? say, hell, no, you will not dismantle obama's achievement? >> i think you are bringing up a point that we are seeing more and recent weeks. there are candidates that are acknowledging it. democrats -- it needs to be acting -- to continue to be worked on. republicans, they will have a receptive audience with some democrats in the house, maybe even in the senate, folks who may join with them on some aspect of tweaking the bill and that would allow them to make good on their campaign
promise. we have seen at times in the last few weeks i nthn the senate with one provision dealing with small business that did not go anywhere. the president will not sign it. that will build up to 2012. >> this is in your specialty again. can you discuss sharron angle's immigration comment. calling the canadian border porous. it got a rebuke from the canadian ambassador. >> if sharron angle makes it to a senate, it would be very interesting. i think she is colorful, but she is emblematic of how difficult
the immigration issue will be for democrats to deliver on that campaign promise. the president promised to do something on immigration. he is facing trouble with the hispanic voters merely because he was a very specific about passing are producing an immigration bill. he has not. >> earlier in the year, there was a lot of commentary the republicans, because of the tough and controversial arizona law, were driving off the cliff on the immigration issue. has that turned out to be true, -- has immigration ban and been a net positive for them? >> neither party wants to grapple with immigration. it is a boon to democrats and that hispanics, ieven for the lip service they get, but the party i think is reluctant to take up anything more than lip service.
they will hide behind things like border security. a phrase that is mean ingless, because we cannot establish border security until we give citizenship to the undocumented workers in this country. the president said he would pass it in the first couple years. he has not done that. now he will be forced to deal with it in his first term, and i think he does not want to do with it in his first term. >> hispanic voters and constituency groups, is their patients coming to an end with obama? we read about the anger they have towards republicans. but how patient are the with democrats? >> company i have done stories on this. they have been told to wait for years -- i have done stories on this. than the president having to met hillary clinton's promise.
he said the first year. they believed him. they rallied for him. they are very upset with them. he will have a lot of repair work to do. >> i can only do so much policy before i start to get fidgety. we've got a question from a colleague. i will ask everybody for a brief answer. on election night, when will we know whether or not the republicans wave is real, what is the bellweathether race? >> i'll defer to jonathan. >> i'll urge everybody watching to keep their eye on kentucky. that is a state where returns, and early . polls closed at 6:00. we know what is going on in that state. two races -- rand paul, jack conway. if paul is beating conway by 10 points, it will be a big night
for republicans. also, the house race in lexington. ben chandler, the grandson of the baseball commissioner, a big name in kentucky. a democrat, will positioned. if he loses, we know it will be a big night for the gop. >> we will also know early because there are a number of house races in the northeast which should be locked down for democrats. if you see a bunch of republicans winning in massachusetts, in new york, you know that will carry through the rest of the country. at the end of 2008, there were 12 house races where we did not know the results. that could be are rounding error now. >> it will not be over until
television says it is over. >> real fast. that is a smart point, because alaska could go for days. four time zones away. a long ways away. ut you've got a three-way contest there. ing on gods are shingi politico, that could be one of those races where we do not know the outcome and that is key to the senate. >> i have another question. >> i think pennsylvania is a good one. that is a clear battleground state. if toomey pulls it out, that's good. >> do you buy the suggestion that that race is tightening?
polls.there's two it is probably reflective of a lot of to mold on the ground -- tumult on the ground. democrats have increased their voter registration incredibly over the last two years it depends on philadelphia or the west-- it depends on philadelphia or the west. >> maggie, of the question for you -- i have a question fo r you. we talked about some candidates getting caught flatfooted this year. i am wondering if you think it is fair to say that the obama white house got caught flatfooted this year. a year ago, i remember in the off-year elections, republicans won gibbig in virginia, a state that barack obama had carried.
but one year later, republicans won big. the same thing happened close to you in new jersey. went republican. election night, they were saying, those are anomalous races. look at new york 23 where we won. do you think the wide as has been too slow to react to these big changes -- do you think the white house has been too slow to to react to these changes? >> i think that they were too slow. and now there is nothing they can do. ny 23 -- no democrat has won this seat in over 100 years. that was an anomaly. there was a lot of intraparty weirdness in that. they took meta meaning out of
that. the chris christie verdict was much more reflected. only in the last month, have you seen them start to react. >> corzine was a weak incumbent. property taxes are soaring -- it is new jersey. mcdonald did win. but there was no excuse after scott brown won. i was there for the final six days of that campaign, but it is a federal race in massachusetts, folks. are republicans has not won a senate seat there -- republican have not won a senate seat there and a long time. what is happening? the dam will burst. >> we do not have representatives from the white house here, but try to mind meld. what would they say to this? >> we saw this coming.
we recognize that our victory was an ephemeral. we knew we had to cram a lot of this legislation through -- "rohm-ing" it through. we might have been in a better electoral position if we only nibbled at these big problems. instead, we gulped at them. got two once in a century achievements. if you're going for mount rushmore, he is in a good position. if you're going for party strength, he is not in a good spot. >> they thought that once they did these things, they would get more of "the hila buzz. remiss in and talking about the economy. they thought the economy would be better by now. that is the biggest factor in this election.
would anyone disagree? >> no. the problem started at the top. start with president obama. it probably started on the night of the november 4, 2008, when he wondered he thought the campaign is over and now i switched to legislative mode. the trouble is in politics, it is not a-b-c -- always be closing. it's a-b-s. always be selling. your image, your platform. there were many great quotes in "the new york times" this sunday. sennioiores a white house aide who said obama is opaque, even to us. it is hard for a political
operation to function when they get no clear idea of what the president wants and especially for the president is. >> make your point about the politics of defense and the contrast of president clinton and president obama. >> i do to a fault tend to view politics through the prism of the clinton experience, because i covered bill clinton for six of his a yeareight years. and i spoke to him r ecently. one of the things that is a striking when you talk to the obama crowd, at the beginning of the administration, they saw themselves reversing bush-cheney and reversing bill clinton. they did not want to have a bill
clinton-style presidency. there were almost contemptuous of that and saw themselves as much or reagan-like, except on the progressive side. i think what they learned is that bill clinton was on to something, and clinton believes that if you want to be a democrat in this country and to advance a progressive agenda, you need to play the politics of defense, constantly reassuring voters, voters in the middle, these places where the house democrats are very vulnerable, you have to reassure those voters on ideological terms -- i am not just a big government liberal. i am doing concrete things that will make your life better. you need to practice personal reassurance. my values are your values. i am not an alien character. i do think that we are going to be seeing democrats in the white house looking very closely at bill clinton's example and his comeback after the 1994 rebuke
that he received that year. anyway, this has been of very good panel. we have had a great mix of horse race and substance. one thing that seems certain -- are worn to to be wary of coverage of election. this city and the politics of this country will always keep getting more interesting. we will not settle in any time soon to a comfortable lull. we're at the point in our history were part i-- where pows for all. that makes for an interesting story. enjoy the last two weeks of this great election. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
the challenge to the health care law. a look at voter machines and voter registration. "washington journal" is live beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern. later i hearing on the t.a.r.p. program. live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. >> this weekend, c-span3's american history tv looks at virginia troubled by the abolition of fish slavery and we will visit richmond for one of the largest in tv shows. we're back to the classroom with former civil rights leader
>> good evening and welcome to tonight's debate. this debate is produced in cooperation with the league of women voters of illinois and the illinois broadcasters' association. joining me in questioning the candidates are abc7's charles thomas, rebecca sanchez, and andy shaw. each candidate will have an opening statement of one minute. we begin with mr. brady. >> my wife nancy and i built a small business. i am running for governor because of i am concerned about my children and yours. for the last eight years of deficit spending, corruption, and back-room deals -- our government is broke. governor quinn has lost over
200,000 jobs. n has lost over 200,000 jobs -- governor quinn has lost over 200,000 jobs. i want to cut spending and taxes and create private-sector jobs. my opponent's plan is to raise your taxes and create bigger government. governor, you used to "jfk saying cutting taxes help hard- working families. what happened? illinois and these a leader. pat quinn has proven he is not up to the job. as your next governor, i will put the people bought the interest in front of the insider's address. >> thank you, mr. brady. mr. quinn. >> i am feel honored to be the state of illinois. i was sworn in during a tough time in our state's history. i brought honesty to the governor's of this.
we have enacted very strong ethical standards and we enforce the standards every day. that is the best way to have jobs in illinois -- have an honest governor who puts the people first. just today we were able to bring jobs to our state. 250 jobs making railroad cars. yesterday, a company called groupon now has 900 jobs in our state. that gave us the incentive to grow even more jobs -- 250 jobs. i understand what jobs are all about. we have to recover our economy. we inherited a terrible recession from george bush. we are on the comeback trail. >> the first question goes to mr. brady. >> senator brady, on the subject of balancing the state budget budget, the freezes are a dime on the dollar and 10% on --
across the board has been described as your approach to spending cuts. will you explain to the people of illinois white you have not proposed a line by line adjusted balanced budget so we can see before the election how you would prioritize the spending of our tax dollars? >> governor klan has increased spending by 8 $3 billion. -- governor klan has increase spending by $3 billion. -- governor quinn has increased spending by $3 billion. we have a government we can no longer afford. degette zero years ago he was given an opportunity to rein in state spending. this year, unprecedented opportunity. he failed to do so. i am calling for a business
audit completed by the auditor general so we can make transparent where government spending is going. governor quinn comes up with a new program every day in a secret way. i will bring transparency to the governor's office. >> we have cut our budget by $3 billion. that is more than any governor in the history of illinois. we have done it in a proper way, not a reckless way as indicated by my opponent. we have maintained our health care. we have maintained our education. we are taking care of our veterans. it is important to do that. if we have reduced the number of state employees by 1102. that is unheard of. the estimates are that $220 billion will be saved to the taxpayers of illinois by public pension reform. we have been able to reform our office space to reduce office
space and save money for the taxpayers. i have a specific plan to cut the budget. if we are doing what is called "budgeting for results." which get that passed in the legislature. my opponent, senator brady, but did against it. we are entering it to the taxpayers. >> why have you not taken the same animation that was andilable to governor whquinn given us a budget of your own so we can see what your priorities are? >> the information is not available. he just talked about public safety. the governor is in -- it is not in the behest of public safety when you release inmates earlier -- release inmates early. no state government will be asked to reconcile our spending. i will not punish one area or another. this last year, governor quinn
cut $1 billion in classroom spending while leaving their bureaucracy in tacked on the state board of education. he's focused on law-enforcement -- cutting redistribution to local units of government and cutting state police. his record on public safety is abysmal. >> our budget this year increased education. we want to make sure we invest in our children. i do not want to lose a generation of children in illinois. my opponent was to cut the education budget by $1.26 billion. he would fire 20,000 teachers in our state. it will cut scholarships for students who want to go to college by tens of thousands. if that is a reckless way to go. i believe in cutting the budget, but doing it in a proper way that maintains their education. if with respect to public safety, my on is hardly one to talk about that. he voted against barring spouse
abusers and child abusers from being able to have guns. i believe we ought to bar this kind of people from having guns whatsoever. >> mrs. sanchez, your first question goes to mr. quinn? >> how do you hold line items accountable and hal or the results driven? >> the center led the effort to center the legislature and a landmark budget reform. it requires us to look at every single line item of our state budget and determine whether or not it is producing results. it is not, that money will not be there the following year. that is a systematic way to cut the budget on an annual basis. i supported that. my opponent voted against it. my opponent is not willing to cut the budget. i think i have shown my results and accomplishments in office. i have been able to cut the budget by more than any governor in illinois history.
i cut my own pay and that of the salaries of might staff members. i also have made sure that we reform our public pension system. my opponent voted to keep his pay the same. i do not think that is a very good way to help the economy and government. this governor believes in saving government by cutting his own plate. that is the way to go. >> while we do in the private sector is what we need to adopt. politicians cannot follow through on it. he talks about cutting pay, but gives secret pay raises to his inner circle staff. we cannot make payments to our human service providers and health care survivors. we cannot afford the secret programs anymore and excessive spending. we need to deal with budgeting on a line item basis and 80 budget basis. we need to ensure that we a public safety. we take care of our most
adorable. we balance the resources we have for a sound education system. governor quinn failed on these issues. he took the insider's interest and said the people's answers. we will take the high road and support the people, not the insiders. >> follow-up? >> governor, how do you hold him accountable? what is the criteria to give someone a line item? or the results driven? >> i do not think we should do that. we need to make sure that money that taxpayers put into the government are spent in a proper way. that is what we believe in education. when we invest in education, we are helping our state for tomorrow. we believe in our community colleges. we have 1 million students in our community colleges. we want to make sure they deliver results for all of this
just like our four year universities. it is important to have that investment. but the government needs to make sure we do have education. my opponent was to cut the education budget in illinois and raise local property taxes. he said so at the state fair. there would be a natural rise in property taxes in illinois. i am dead set against that. that is the wrong way to go. >> you should tell the truth. i never talked about raising property taxes and you know it. the question was about line item budgeting and zero budgeting. you could balance the budget, but you failed to do so. he left illinois with record deficits and debt. he left us with the backlog of unpaid bills over $6 billion. we need a governor who has the
discipline to stand up for the people's interest and not the special insider's interest. as governor of the state, i will stand up for the people of illinois. >> center brady, you are opposed to abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and a primitive action. a lot of people who do believe we need a change in springfield who would like to see republicans in a leadership position are afraid to vote for you because they are afraid that the that you will destroy a lot of the fabric they believe in. what you tell those people? >> i am proud of my beliefs. unlike the governor, i am not using them to divide illinois. the governor has used social issues to divide illinois to out this campaign. i want to bring the people together by solving the economic and fiscal crisis. we have lost over 26,000 jobs in
the last two months. he talks about bringing jobs to illinois, but fails to recognize when you lose more jobs than you create it hurts hardworking illinois families. our agenda is about reducing taxes, balancing our budget, creating jobs, a family -- a friendly environment for illinois families. the governor has used social issues to divide illinois. i will use my platform and this office to bring economic viability back to our state. >> i am pro-business and pro people. if you are pro people you have to understand that there are fundamental rights that people have. with respect to the issue of choice, i am pro-choice. my opponent wants a constitutional amendment to ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. the other night he sponsored legislation and voted to allow employers to fire gay people from their job just because they
are gay. that is plain wrong. my opponent also is against banning assault weapons. assault weapons that are used to kill police officers and young people on the street. this is wrong. i believe we need a governor who will stand up for common sense gun-control. finally on standing up for people, you have to have a governor with a heart. i understand that. it is important to come to the african-american community and make sure they had the opportunity to evaluate the candidates. my opponent has missed five straight debates including the urban league and the naacp. he does not show up. i show up everywhere. i am accountable. you have to have a governor like that. >> a lot? >> let me see if i can get an actual answer to the question, why do you say to people who are afraid he will roll back existing rights when it comes to choice, the guns, a primitive action, and gays?
there is a concern that your agenda is a threat to all of the things they have worked part 4. >> the federal courts have ruled in on the issue of abortion. i believe in the parent's right to be notified. i support the second amendment. these issues should not be used to divide illinois. many people agree with me on these issues. if we need a governor who will focus on the crisis at hand -- creating jobs. the governor is right. the is the jobs governor. the is the governor -- he is the jobs governor far missouri, kentucky, and wisconsin. if you turned your back on the minority communities. you turn your backs on minority communities when it came to education. he but the special interest in front of the people's interest. we need a governor who will support the people's interest. >> e thank you, mr. brady.
>> all like to address this question to both of you. there appears to be a dichotomy about the issue of life. you do not want to reinstitute the at executions in illinois for fear of taking an asset live, yet you oppose abortion. your opponent of book -- had the square that issue about life? >> i believe that the death penalty should be used in heinous circumstances. we all know there were 13 instances where there were innocent people on death row and they were going to be put to death or wrongly. we had to reform our death penalty law in illinois. fundamental reform was enacted. the moratorium was put in to make sure those reforms were carried out in practice. i think the moratorium should continue. it is the best way to protect the public interest. i also think we need to ban
assault weapons. the number one fear of children today in too many cities is a fear of being shot. we need a governor who understands that we need to protect children and live by banning assault weapons and also keeping child abusers and domestic spouse abusers from having guns. i think that is part of fighting for life as well. that is what i believe in. i am the governor of allen boyd. i have to take responsibility to preserve and protect the people. i have done that by standing up for law enforcement officers, veterans, firefighters, and military families. i visited with a mother who lost her son in afghanistan. we honor his life and mourn his loss. >> mr. brady, oppose abortion and support the death penalty. is that a consistent position? >> i believe it is. i do not believe that heinous
criminals put on death row who had been convicted and sentenced to capital punishment deserve protection. governor quinn was to continue a moratorium that does not make sense to me. but governor's lee, they do not plot. lead, they do not punt. a governor who leads on this issue will lead illinois. we will not continue early release programs where violent offenders released early on the streets are putting our citizens at risk. >> as a followup, you both mentioned jobs.
he said the state has lost 200,000 jobs since the governor took over. he says will lead the midwest in job growth. >> the governor does not take into account the loss of jobs. he boasts about this job or that, but over all illinois has lost more jobs -- 200,000 jobs at the expense of hard-working illinois families. in the last two months we lost 26,000 jobs. 35 other states in this nation created more jobs than they lost in the last two zero months. we are in the unenviable position of being a eight states in a recession. we need work, reform, medical malpractice reform, -- he continues to threaten to increase taxes on families and businesses killing jobs. we need a governor who will
stand up for businesses. i will do that, creating jobs. >> daniel patrick moynihan said one time that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not everyone is entitled to their own facts. our state for eight straight months has had reduced unemployment. we have been able to reduce the number of people who are unemployed. we have a long way to go. i inherited the worst recession in our lifetime from george bush. i did not support george bush for president. my opponent did. he was a supporter of george bush's failed economic policies. i do not want to see that come to the state of illinois. we have brought from wisconsin to ellen like a company that is making railroad cars for the beat -- from wisconsin to illinois a company that is making railroad cars. we have a company that grew from eight jobs in 2008 to 100 jobs.
>> your pricing goes to mr. brady first. >> you had been a member of the illinois house or the illinois senate for the past 17 years. can you cite for the voters watching your three most important legislative accomplishments during that time? i would like to hear about bills in which you took the lead in sponsorship. >> i care deeply about education, which is why in 1995 when the federal rules on teacher's health insurance prohibited us from using pension forms would have left every retired teacher without health insurance. i led the charge to sponsor the legislation and created the first program where retired teachers would have health insurance. i also took the lead in deregulating banks and insurers. you could no longer have a
prohibition on banks and insurers. it brought competition and gave consumers and opportunity. i took the lead on that role as well. i also worked hard to support my community college by helping find it the community college. fund that community college. you can't take the lead on some issues, you can support others. inupported jessica's all illinois. the democratic controlled senate to the bill away from me, but i am proud that i initiated the law to protect the most horrible. >> i have been around a while. center brady has been in springfield a lot longer than i have. i believe i recall. we got it on the ballot this year.
center brady takes a lot of money from the utility companies. i believe in fighting for consumers. i believe in fighting the insurance companies when they are unfair. the old issue of making sure we have a good budget, we were able to pass a legislative -- legislation to protect funds. last year we created the job recovery act. we invested in roads, safe bridges, and invested in schools. we built new schools in illinois to help education. that is what it is all about when you come to accomplishments. ford motor co. came to our state with 1200 new manufacturing jobs. they did not go to indiana. they came to illinois because of our workers. we have a well educated workers.
that is what governor's do. >> follow-up? >> during your 19 months in office as governor and you're dealing with the legislature tried to resolve the budget, why should illinois voters believe that during a full term you'd be in more effective than you had been during these past months? >> we have the record of cutting the budget in a prudent way. we are not going to harm our education, our health care, for our programs for veterans. i understood that. i have common sense. my opponent was to increase the budget deficit. i stand against that type of nonsense. i think it is important to have a governor who is consistent, who tells the legislature in plain language that we have to invest in our schools. that is the best investment we can make today and in deep future. if my opponent wants to cut
education and raise property taxes. that is the wrong way to go in illinois. we have to invest in human beings. we can have a stronger economy, more teachers you are accountable, making sure our students are the best in the whole world. >> response? >> under the first six years we saw no leadership. we have a $13 billion deficit. the governor has failed to provide the same leadership of the last two months. if the viewers are happy with the way illinois is going, he let pat quinn. it's the what in illinois that looks more like an indiana or a tennessee, a state that can turn the page, we need a new governor in springfield. he has had a chance to lead. as governor, i will lead from the governor's office. we will bring reform and jobs to
illinois families. >> a percentage of the state budget goes to the governor's discretionary budget. i would like to know how did you spend that 13%? >> we have transparency and openness like never before in illinois. we enacted a stronger freedom of information act that i signed. and what to thank our attorney general who worked with me on that to get the job done for the public. she is a believer in openness for the public. we also understand that when people are interested in a board or commission, it should be on line. we put everything imaginable on line. we have electronic democracy on line. people can nominate themselves. they can go online and do exactly that. we make sure we file information with the controller.
we have the new law called the "budgeting for out, all for results appear "everything has to be put before the taxpayer so they concede that. the budgeting for results law. he opposed it. he opposed reducing his own play. i reduced my own pay. i understand why we are in tough times the governor has to reduce his pay. i think it is important for senator ready to do the same. >> the question was what did you do with the 13% discretionary funding. if you fail to answer the question. that is why we need an audit. this is a house of cards. governor quinn has failed to be transparent. the people of illinois has to pay for it. if we need a governor to present the facts to the people of illinois. his failure and an ability to do
so has put us in a bad position of not knowing what our finances are. it is important that we bring an altar in to audit the misspending of the -- bring an auditor in to audit the misspending of the current administration. we have racked up a record $13 billion deficit. i will conduct the audit. i will be transparent to the people of illinois. >> governor, you did not answer that question. how would you spend it? >> the money -- i lay out a specific budget each year, crystal clear, and give a blueprint of how the money is spent. i maintain our spending for education and basic health care. i maintain our spending for public safety and for our
veterans. my opponent was to cut the department of veterans affairs by millions of dollars. our country has had two wars. we have soldiers coming home from iraq and afghanistan. we have to make sure we have programs for them. i have cut the budget by $3 billion. that is more than any governor in illinois history. i did it in a prudent way of by eliminating wasteful spending, finding fraud -- i have done this. i think it is important to have a governor who does this, not eight wronged and restless -- reckless the governor. >> it does not matter how many times you say you have spent cutting -- how many times you say you have cut $3 billion. it is not true. i will not attack any one area of state spending. in his last budget, he taxed classroom spending by over $1
billion and failed to address reductions in the state board of education. he slashed public safety. as governor i will balance the budget in a brawl that way. i will make every area of state government focus on how they can spend. do not put words in my mouth, governor. i never said i was/veterans affairs. there is plenty of room to cut spending and leaves our veterans appears intact. >> senator brady, in 1979 when you were a teenager, the chicago board of education collapse financially and governor jim thompson convened a summit on a cold day in january and brought in all the stakeholders. they spent a week in that manchin and when they came out
they had a plan to put the board of education back together. i am wondering if you do not think we need a similar approach so that a day after inauguration you sit down with all the stakeholders and deal with the 30 billion, -- the $30 billion, the $6 billion because it will not get fixed with plans on paper. you have a democratic legislature, unions, and lobbyists -- should they not be in a broom for a week and have the solution? >> absolutely. governor quinn has had six years to do that and he has dropped the ball. we will lay the facts on the line and bring these stakeholders to the table to solve the state budget fiscal prices. it takes leadership. it takes someone willing to stand up for the people's interest. i would give you an example. we did this in a bipartisan way
when it came to mccormick place. we sat down and came up with a solution only to have been vetoed by governor quinn because he was more interested in his campaign and special interests. i will work with these stakeholders to bring out real resolutions. >> i believe in taking on special interest. i have done it all my life. but the selling started the citizens utility board. we have also taken on the insurance companies. center brady actually voted against the bill that would have let new mothers stay in the hospital for more than 24 hours. he wanted to kick them out of the hospitals are like the insurance companies did after one day's stay. i have stood up for the public interest of my life. i understand the importance of jobs. that is why we held for the last
eight months declining unemployment. we have a governor who wears carefully with business. that is how we got for it to come here at with 1200 -- how we got ford to come here with 1200 new jobs. >> follow-up? >> you did not say whether you would convene this kind of meeting and meet them in a mansion. bill in the light has 7000 units of government. -- illinois has 7000 units of government. what is your plan to systematically attach this over abundance of government in the interest of inefficiency and streamlining? >> i was the commissioner of the largest property tax appeal agency in this whole state. we gave property tax relief to thousands of homeowners,
businesses, and farmers all over illinois. it is important to cut the units of government. there is a lot of duplication. i think we have to fight and lower property taxes. my opponent wants to cut state support for education by over $1 billion. our state constitution says that the state of illinois is the primary responsibility for funding our schools. if the state does not fund the schools, property taxes go through the roof. center brady wants to raise your property taxes. -- senator brady wants to raise your property taxes. >> governor, it was you who introduced a bill to cut education funding by over $1 billion. if you are right. we need to address this issue. we have a local referendums, but we have failed to provide the resources necessary to get the job done.
consolidation ultimately cost money we do not have. i believe it is a good investment for the state to provide resources in the short term to better afford consolidation. we also need to provide for more efficiency and effectiveness in the operation. >> if you have a commercial running now that says senator brady voted of fort the government to seize private land to benefit his business. >> it was on the front page of the sunday paper. when he was state senator, senator brady on three separate occasions -- not one, but three separate occasions voted on bills that directly affect his interest. we do not need a governor of illinois like the last two to is ethically challenged. -- who is ethically challenged. i call for the records --
resignation and the impeachment of rod voinovich. -- rod blood voinovich -- rod blagovitch. he is only given a glimpse of his income tax return. i have done that all my life everyday. we disclose our tax returns. they are available to the public. my running mate disclosed her income-tax returns. this is not healthy for the people. >> ethically challenged, governor? you told us four years ago that rod was an honest man and a man of integrity. either you were asleep at the will were more interested in your reelection that the people's interest. what about committing the next
governor to not being able to fix the state's resources? the record is clear. there is no conflict of interest in these pieces of legislation. i am above that. as governor i will not allow for it. quite a quick follow up on these issues. he says there were three boats that were ethical issues, you say there were not. can you tell us what the votes were? >> one dealt with a decision that dealt with private property rights. the first vote dealt with then issue before i had a key interest in a piece of property. the last vote dealt with an issue that did not include our property. >> you do not accept that, governor? >> i do not think anybody except sit. the tribune laid it out. there were three boats that involved senator brady's real-
estate company. that is something a governor should ever do -- it never have conflicts of interest. you cannot have private business interests affecting your judgment. i have never had these kinds of conflicts of interest. it is important for the people of illinois to know ahead of time. senator brady has not given us on its financial statements about his business. i think it is important that the people of illinois has a governor who works all the time for them. i stood up to george ryan. senator brady supported him in 1994 as secretary of state. he supported him in 1998 when he ran for governor. i think it is is very important to have a governor -- i think it is very important to have a governor with fortitude.
senator brady is not telling us the truth today about his all conflicts of interest. george ryan got into trouble by using his position to help himself financially. we cannot have a governor like that. we cannot have jobs in illinois if businesses think there is a conflict of interest. >> out of time. thank you. the next question goes to mr. brady. >> what this short position for set asides for minority and women enterprises? do you believe they are necessary and would you actively support and enforce such rules? >> i think those are good policies to help minority-owned businesses elevate and employ people. we have to maintain the opportunity for minority-owned businesses to grow. we cannot just of large business
is growing. the fundamental foundation of illinois' economy is start-up businesses. i understand the importance of that. it is important to assist minority businesses. >> i believe in set-aside. i campaigned for them. i made it possible for many minority businesses to get contracts in state government. we work on that exclusively. we passed a job recovery bill last year. i also believe in going to the urban league and the naacp and other forms in minority neighborhoods across our state. senator brady does not show up. showing up is part of being accountable. as governor i have to answer all questions. i understand the importance of the minimum wage in illinois. i helped raise the minimum wage. my opponent voted against
raising the minimum wage, now he was to cut minimum wage and take $2,000 out of the pockets of ordinary, everyday people who are at minimum wage. that is a bad way to go to get our state back on track. he also wants to end the "but illinois to work." firing these people is the wrong way to go. we need a governor who has common sense, who fights for ordinary people. >> follow up? >> senator brady, can you respond to the governor's charge? >> showing up, governor, means standing up for support for wal- mart and a big boxes in a
minority communities. you were awol. you were with the special interest once again, the governor. it is also standing up for education part. -- standing up for education. he single-handedly killed a bill by siding with the special interests instead of the students and the people. we need a governor who will stand for the people of illinois. the governor has been awol when it comes to job creation in the minority communities and the educational interests of the students in some of the worst performing districts in the state. >> there is no secret why senator brady got and f in affirmative-action. all over our state, i want to make sure everyone has a good job. that is why i get up every day
at work night and day on behalf of economic development for our state. we have a recovering economy from what george bush gave us. 8 million lost jobs in america. i did not support george bush. i inherited this recession. senator brady supported george bush. he was to bring this policies to our state. he was to deregulate banks and give tax breaks to special interests. that is what george bush did. that is why our economy went into a ditch in america. i want to work with businesses on job creation initiatives. "put illinois to work" is a great program. it takes people and puts them on a job so they can support their family. >> out of time. thank you. rebecca sanchez, your question
goes to mr. brady. >> i have appointed hispanic citizens of our state to many important positions. i appointed the head of our human relations commission, who happens to be hispanic. we have a great movement in our education. 20% of the children in illinois is a good to school happen to be hispanic children. one thing i had done related to that is make sure that we built schools. we announced the building of more building and rebuilding of schools. that is important for our hispanic children. we had the head of the state
board of education. he is someone i trust. he is a person who believes very strongly in education, as i do. another thing i think is important, i honor the soldiers in illinois who have fought for our country. i went to a high school where three young hispanic marines gave their lives for our country. we worked with the students there to make sure we honored them. >> absolutely. i believe that a pretty administration needs to be representative of the population of illinois. we have been in touch with a number of hispanic leaders the wealthiest -- due out the chicago area and the rest of the state. it is all of illinois. it is not just the hispanics. a brady administration will be representative of the interest of the state of illinois. we be good leaders in each
community in my administration. i will make sure that we are represented assets. >> while the leaders that you are talking about in the hispanic community, who are you talking about people such as two former allies of the former governor? >> i am not sure who you are speaking of? >> i know that you had a fund- raiser that was held by two former allies. it seems contradictory for you to do that when you are talking about starting fresh and transparency. i do not think any of his former allies would fall under that category. >> i am not sure if you are speaking of? >> they have been involved.
they hosted a fund-raiser to help encourage support within the latino chamber of commerce and the various chambers of commerce in the latino community. i believe they are representative of the edges. they are good people who believe in their community and their state. i look forward to their guidance to bring a well represented government to illinois. >> one of those people is the deputy governor to the former governor who was impeached and removed. i let him go from the staff. obviously he is always senator brady. it is important that we help all people in illinois, but hispanic citizens in particular. i am against the arizona law. it is a bad law did it will harm our country in my opinion.
i am very glad the united states government is suing to reject that law. i stand up and speak out for immigration reform and speak against anything involving racial profiling. i went to a high school where three young marines gave their lives for our country. they were all hispanic. i do know what their families to have to prove their citizenship. they have done it already. >> your question is to mr. brady. >> the ticking time bomb in illinois is the unfunded pension liability of about $80 million. there was an element of reform, but it only affects the future employees. it does not change the situation for existing state employees, both actuarial sent experts believe that significant changes have to be made in the pensions
and the health-care benefits going forward of current employees. what would you do? the last step was like a band- aid on a hemorrhage? >> if you are absolutely right. our pension system has been doubly funded. that is too long. people of illinois are saddled with nearly $8 billion deficit in the pension system. i believe we have to protect people who have paid into the pension system. it is not their fault that the previous of governors and did not pay into it. we have to realize we cannot continue the program as it has been. we need to adopt measures that will prospectively moved state employees into a similar pension business -- defined contributions. >> this is obviously ridiculous
because senator brady has been in office 17 years serving under republican governors, supporting them as they failed to popular pay the pensions of to the people of illinois. i am the first governor ever to take this issue on. it is a difficult issue. this year we passed a reform law that george will said was the most far reaching public pension reform ever adopted by any state ever in the united states. i cite that law. it will save taxpayers in illinois to under $20 billion over the next generation. senator brady failed to act on this. he helped create the problem and now he is pointing fingers at me. it is important to have a governor who tackles tough issues. i do. it is not easy. all the time she did not make a lot of friends doing it in politics, but sometimes you have
to do what is right for the people. when i took the oath of office in january of last year, i said i would do everything i could to make sure allen boyd got back on track. i have done my very best. -- make sure illinois got back on track. i have done my very best. >> please tell the audience of one single thing you will do or promote to fight for that would reduce the influence of money on elections in illinois. >> i believe then petition and referendum. i was a staff politician. we did it by petition and a referendum. i believe in using that power to reduce the size of the legislature. we did that in 1980. in answer to the question, i think the best way to strengthen
the people of illinois is to have an ethics initiative or the people at the local and state level can propose campaign finance reform and other ethics reform directly by petition and vote on them by referendum, going around the legislature and enacting them directly. i fought for that. it is the best way to go. >> governor, you did not even have the backbone to demand a vote on your own commission's recommendation. you back into the corner and were left with nothing. three most important things -- term limits, contribution limits, and legislative districts john -- legislative districts drawn by a computer. math does not lie. during your time as governor, we increase the unfunded liability by $35 billion. you fail to meet the obligation.
in 1995, republicans passed reform funding that you ignored. >> gentleman, as we get near the final questions, i want to talk about financing and how we get out of this whole. mr. quinn you said an increase in the income tax was necessary. the stand by that position? >> i believe in a surcharge for education. the best way to have jobs today and in the future is to make sure we invest in our school. my opponent was to cut education funding by $1.26 billion. that will put the burden on local property taxes. they will skyrocket. he is for raising taxes all right, property taxes. there is more money in property taxes than is paid in income tax and sales tax together. we should have a fair revenue system based on ability to pay. the property tax system is not
based on ability to pay. you pay based on a good year or whether you have an income or not. i do not think we should use property taxes as a key way to find the most important part of the most -- fifund important part of our lives, educating our children. >> mr. brady, are you willing to take the no new taxes' pledge? >> i have made it very clear -- no new taxes. there is no more dangerous place to be between governor quinn and a tax hike. he is a career insider politician, dating back to the walker years. then onto the property tax appeals board. he said -- then onto the
treasury's office. mr. recently as a partner with the former governor. we do not the career politicians. we need people who will represent the people's *, not the special interests. >> gentlemen, you may both be in the same boat. mr. quinn, he called mr. brady a millionaire who did not pay federal and come taxes. he says he was a victim of national economics. he says you have put the state in a whole. you say our state was the same as every other state facing the consequences of this economy. >> governor quinn has said i did not pay income taxes. i have six years of tax returns that show i'd paid a fair amount
of and taxes over the six years. governor quinn, the proof is in a pudding. he has racked up a $13 billion budget deficit because he has not had the will to redefine state budget at a level we can afford. last week at the urban institute issued a statement saying he was the worst governor when it comes to finding him and services. lambasting by the coalition against sexual violence and domestic violence. we need a governor who will balance our budget so local agencies will that what they can receive and work to provide services within those means. >> indiana has a higher unemployment rate than our state of illinois periods we have had month after month of declining unemployment. we have a long way to go.
boeing is taking jobs from missouri and bring into illinois. the bottom line is you have to have a governor who has a heart. i pay income taxes. i do not want to cut the minimum wage like senator bill brady, a millionaire who does not pay any and contacts. he was to cut the minimum wage on the people who does pay income tax. they paid more than he does. that is not right. >> that brings us to the end of our questions. we now have closing statements. mr. brady, one minute please. >> thank you very much. illinois is at a crossroads. we are a state rich in opportunity and resources, but we need new leadership. leadership matters. governor quinn has run our state into the ground. record deficits in debt.
$13 billion deficit. over 200,000 jobs lost. if you want to continue down the path of our taxes and deficits, -- path of higher taxes and deficits, vote for him. >> i took the oath of office at the very tough time. as we reform our government, made it more open, cleaned it up, stabilize debt. we are better than when i took office. we have also approved our economy. george bush created a big mess in our economy. he inherited a good economy from president clinton and made it bad. we are creating more jobs than any other state in the midwest. it is important to have a governor who has a heart for every day people. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your time and efforts. this concludes our deb